by Rostislav Ishchenko
translated by Eugenia
Alexander the Blessed needed an extra year to finish the war with Turkey, train already drafted recruits, and deploy at the Western border against Napoleon not 200 thousand, but half a million-strong army, which would not have bothered to retreat into the heart of the Empire.
Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin needed another year to complete the technical upgrade of the army, formation of motorized units, and deployment at the border of the force capable of meeting the enemy on equal terms.
That by itself does not mean that thus deployed forces would have necessarily fought successfully. In 1809, Austrians and in 1939-1940 French and British had more than enough time and resources to deploy against Napoleon and Hitler, respectively, having forces at least equal, and in some ways superior to their armies. Austrians in 1809 as well as French and British in 1939-1940 had the initiative – they decided when to choose offensive or defensive action. In both cases, the defeats due the superior strategy of the Napoleon and Hitler Joint Staff were catastrophic.
Nevertheless, we all agree that before the war it is better to have an extra year than not to have it. The better you prepare for the war, the better you chances are to win it. Most importantly, your victory would come without an enormous cost in human lives and moral losses, which, as a rule, accompany wars started with failures.
This time we again need approximately a year
Ten years ago, in 2005 I had a conversation with a colleague of mine – an expert in economics and finances. I always valued his opinions, because he, a person of liberal views, was not dogmatic, but capable of reasonable evaluation of the system’s faults and often was able to describe its problem with more precision than the most able of its Marxist opponents.
Our discussion was focused on the inevitable (we both agreed on that) crisis of the dollar. I argued that the crisis is already happening, but Washington still has the resources to prevent it from bursting into the open, when it impacts all strata of the society and becomes only too apparent not only for the narrow circle of politicians privy to information, but to the whole population of the planet. My colleague did not agree with the statement that the dollar system has exhausted its potential, but argued that with the help of financial and bank instruments the illusion of wellbeing could be maintained indefinitely.
Let me emphasize that he not only knew the system inside out (probably, as well as Trotsky knew the Soviet system), but was also critical enough towards it, being aware that every system has its inherent faults, and none exists forever (each has a limited resource). With the faster pace of the historic process in the past decades, the lifetime of each system is measured at best in decades (by the time of our conversation, the Bretton Woods system had existed for 60 years and had already met with crises that resulted in its serious modifications).
I have never exceeded the limited amount of economic knowledge acquired in the political economy class offered in the history department of the Kiev University in 1987-1992 when I studied there.
That is why I always acknowledged the importance of the economics for the political decisions, but in my own evaluations of the political situation, including that in the economic sphere, preferred to rely on my knowledge of political mechanisms, which, by the way, could sometimes alter the economic reality beyond recognition.
How can that happen – the Ukrainian government gives us a demonstration. For 23 years, it has been acting against the national economic interests; having succeeded in almost completely eliminating the national economy, it set out to eliminate the population as well. Thus, the political force turned out to be stronger that the economic laws (the political power is incapable of making these laws work as it wishes, but can ignore them to the point of bringing about the complete breakdown of the state and society).
Therefore, I derived my conclusion that the dollar-based economy is already in crisis, and thus, pax Americana is also entering the crisis, from the evaluation of the processes in the post-Soviet territories undoubtedly initiated by the US. By that time, four attempts at “color” coups had taken place (two, in 2000-2001 and 2004-2005, in Ukraine, one in Georgia, and one in Kyrgyzstan). Three of them were successful. All of them were directed against Russia.
If the dollar economy were working normally, the US would not have any need to switch in its relations with Russia to the confrontational mode. What is important is that Washington, unlike its usual behavior, did not try to initiate economic war against Russia, but immediately engaged in the political, diplomatic, and informational confrontation, i.e. employed the mechanisms typically preceding the “hot” military hostilities or used in lieu of the latter, in the hope that the adversary can be made to capitulate without the use of military force.
It is no secret that at that time Russia was integrated into the American global financial-economic system and was making active attempt to get incorporated into the American military and political structure of the global dominance. What is more, Russia was willing to accept the role of a junior partner. The only obstacle was that being aware of its military (nuclear arsenal) and economical (unlimited natural resources), as well as positional (transit link through Eurasia) significance, Moscow wanted special partnership. That requirement in essence was aimed at occupying the position in the Washington political system a step above that of the EU.
The situation did not call for the sharp reaction on the part of the US. Within the existing system, Washington had an option of dragging the negotiations while playing for time and, at the opportune moment, hitting Russia with the “mercy strike” unexpectedly and instantly to destroy its economy the same way it destroyed the economy of Argentina or those of Asian “Tigers”.
In general, if we assume that in 2005 the appearance of the US corresponded to the reality of the processes going on behind the façade, America did not need to pay for color revolutions. Strangling Russia in the embrace could have solved everything cheaper and more effectively. Assuming the risk of the political and diplomatic confrontation with Russia (which would be the inevitable result of organizing color coups) the US gained only one thing – time.
But time becomes the key factor in one situation only, when you realize that you are getting weaker faster than the normal pace of historic events gives you a chance to triumph over your adversary. Simply put, you need to vanquish him faster than he gets the opportunity to destroy you. In case of the US, sudden critical weakness could strike only due to the crisis of the dollar economy – every other aspect of the US power is derived from the mighty dollar.
Knowing that the US elites are no different than the Chinese, Russian or Madagascar elites in that they see the crisis only when it is already upon them (they receive all sort of forecasts and always believe more pleasant ones; which is, by the way, how all these “Rand Corporations” make their money) I draw the only possible conclusion. If as far back as in 2005 the US organized the attack on Russia at such a scale that it could not be possibly interpreted as something unintended, insignificant provocation, or the result of thoughtlessness of one or two departments, it means that the American elite is fully cognizant of the crisis. They started to spend resources in order to hide it from the world and, having the knowledge of the available resources and of how fast they are used up, could predict that the time of the crush is within one or two years.
By the way, considering the certainty of my colleague that with the help of the banking instruments and other financial manipulations the US could feel pretty safe until 2020 and correcting for his optimism of the liberal economist, I came to the conclusion that the inevitable collapse of the system will occur between 2015 and 2020. That is why I wrote at the time that the membership in the Customs Union would have allowed Yanukovych not only remain president until 2015, but even get reelected for another 5 years, after which the problem of the US would have gone away, and he would have been safe. For the same reason, I keep insisting for the past one and a half years that the military solution to the Ukrainian crisis is possible at any moment starting from winter of 2014 and up to the beginning of 2016 (with the earlier solution being more likely than the later one), whereas the political solution is possible no earlier than the end of 2016 – beginning of 2017. It could even be later than that, since until the US capitulates nothing will be settled, but the US will not go easily and will fight till the bitter end as the Third Reich. They have everything to lose, and they regret nothing and take pity on no one.
I want to stress one more time that these conclusions are not supported by the columns of statistical data, the size of the army or the number and quality of weaponry, data on the economical growth, etc. First, it is almost impossible to obtain precise figures. Most of the time, even the data available to the government offices for the internal use are imprecise. Second, the data are less important than their interpretation by those who make decisions. Since we have no information about the decisions made, orders issued, or operations initiated under the cover of secrecy, we can only evaluate the political situation based on the moves we observe.
That is, in life and the game of chess, in war and politics, every move crosses off one set of possible solutions and opens up another. The more moves you have made, the clearer you goals could be seen (after all, you always purposefully avoid something and equally purposefully seek something). At certain stages of a disease, a physician can, based only on the objective medical data, diagnose it sight unseen, determine the prognosis and even approximately tell how long the patient has left to live. The same is true in our case – all sides have made sufficient number of moves to cut themselves off from the possibility of retreat. The variations of the victory could be predicted at this stage of hostilities just as easily as it was to foretell the victory in the Great Patriotic war in April of 1943.
Let us consider the situation as it developed. When the US initiated the “color” attack on Russia, Moscow was unprepared to respond adequately in the political, economical or military spheres. Russia was completely incorporated into the dollar economy, and any attempt to damage the US economy would have resulted in the manifold amplified boomerang effect for the Russian economy. At the beginning of the 2000th, the today’s political stability could only be dreamed of – oligarchs were still fighting with the state for the real control over the country. At the same time, growing anti-oligarch sentiments in the society could have at any moment resulted in the popular “senseless and unmerciful” uprising, after which nothing would have been left of the state. The Northern Caucasus has not yet been stabilized; the country was facing the terrorist threat. And, finally, the only strength of the Russian army at the time was the nuclear arsenal, but it is not wise to start the nuclear war at the slightest provocation.
Thus, the Russian leadership started positional external fights sometimes retreating when it was entirely impossible to hold on, sometimes counter-attacking as, for example, in Georgia and Syria. Nevertheless, Moscow acted very carefully, avoiding suspicion of deliberate opposition to the American plans. Kremlin kept insisting on the partnership and accommodated American requests (like proving transit to Afghanistan). Public Russian diplomacy almost humiliated itself begging the West to return to the constructive dialog. Counter-intrigue with the establishment of Russia-friendly NGOs in the countries subjected to the “color” attacks were not apparent, and the undercover work with single structures was invisible and could not possibly counterbalance the massive actions of the US.
In general, the main goal was to gain time, preserve critically important strategic positions and reform the internal political and informational space, as well as the relationship between the Russian and global economical and financial systems in such a way that would give Moscow a chance to wrangle with Washington not only on equal terms but even with some tactical advantages. At the same time, clandestine work in the international field, or, simply put, the search for potential allies and preparation for alliances was being done. And the army was being trained and rearmed.
Actually, precisely these plans of rearming the army and navy prove to us that Russian leadership considered the period between 2015 and 2020 as critical. By 2015, the army was expected to achieve the ability to conduct one limited in time strategic operation in the European theater while providing security along the entire Russian border perimeter. By 2020, the army (judging by the timing of the delivery of weapons and equipment) will have reached the level of preparedness for the full-scale war in Europe.
In order to accomplish all this, it was necessary to convince the US that Russia will not breach the established relationships. In that sense, even the Moscow reaction to the Georgian aggression on South Ossetia was exquisitely measured and did not, it seems, raised serious suspicions in Washington. The use of the Russian troops after the attack on Russian peacekeepers was understandable to Washington. A government that refused to respond adequately in such a situation would lose the public support and might face the resentment in the military. That the Russians refrained from taking Tbilisi and destroying Georgian statehood also had a calming effect. Even more so, because at that time Medvedev was the president of Russia.
Let us recall a widely used not so long ago but now forgotten term “tandem”. Before the association Putin-Medvedev emerged, Kremlin long demonstrated to the West a struggle between the liberals and “siloviki” (power ministries) scaring the US that if “siloviki” win, all hell would break loose. But the “liberals” won. By the way, I am convinced that in Moscow the liberals and “siloviki” honestly believed that they were engaged in an unrelenting struggle with each other (and did do it). Otherwise, the information would have leaked long ago that all this was just bluff. As the old chap Muller used to say: “In the Reich, you cannot believe anybody. But you can believe me”. However, long before that sentence of Bronevoy from “17 moments of spring” movie, all well-known “political technologists” (from Shang Yang to Machiavelli) advised the rulers, if at all possible, not to share their plans with anybody, lest they become known to the enemy. As we know, better safe than sorry.
For four years, Washington was hoping that Medvedev would be reelected for the second term. That hope was not entirely groundless – they received the appropriate signals from Moscow. Only in 2012, when Putin returned to post of the president, and Medvedev, in spite all liberal hopes and rumors about fierce competition inside the “tandem”, did nothing to stay in power, the Americans seemed to have begun to understand that they have been duped. But they were not entirely convinced. After all, the liberal government of Medvedev, so annoying to the patriots, still remained. Thus, the legend about the struggle between the liberals and patriots in the Putin’s surroundings appeared still valid. Many in Russia still believe in it. But not in Washington, not anymore.
But it was too late. Russia has won the needed 10 years for itself. If in 2004 the US had organized a confrontation of the same intensity reached in 2014, Moscow would have had little chance to withstand it. At that time, the economic sanctions would not have passed almost unnoticed by the majority of the population; half of the today’s allies would have been in the opposite camp, and the EU that today is openly sabotaging (at least, the “old Europe”) the American “crusade”, would have joined the anti-Russian ranks without a murmur. Also, the “fifth column” in Russia was still strong. And much more than that has been accomplished in ten years.
I know that it became to be in good taste to make fun of Putin’s “clever plan”, but I want to emphasize that the leadership acting without a strategic plan is hardly ever successful, particularly as successful and in such a critical situation. Russia of 2000 and Russia of 2015 are two different countries. If Putin has achieved such success without a plan, without a coordinated effort of a well-chosen team (even if not everybody on that team knew precisely what they were doing and why), if all of this is just a string of coincidences, then things are even better, since God himself is on Putin’s side. Such remarkable number of coincidences could only be explained by a strategic plan, or by divine intervention, or both. Everyone is free to select the explanation he likes best.
What is important for us, though, is that Russia managed to postpone by almost ten years the major confrontation with America and used that time to prepare for such confrontation, albeit not completely. Let me say that Yanukovych alone failed to notice the preparation for the coup in Ukraine. The timing was obvious – 2015. The false start of the coup in 2013 was an unpleasant surprise not only for Moscow, but also for Washington. Russia was forced into a direct conflict with America earlier than expected. The US was not yet sufficiently worn out and Russia has not yet gained enough strength. Nevertheless, the situation in Ukraine in October-November of 2013 gave grounds for cautious optimism. Moscow could have won and would have won that round, if it had not been for the pathological cowardice, stupidity, and in the end betrayal of Yanukovych, complemented by the total incompetence and venality of his associates.
The military capabilities of the rapid response type were sufficient for the Crimea. We can only guess whether they would have been sufficient for the entire Ukraine. Many still think that such risk should have been taken. Unfortunately, those “many” never commanded anything bigger than the rebel battalion and never directed anything more significant than their own family. That risk could have turn out to be justified, but also could have led to very unpleasant consequences. That is why it is called “risk”: it is impossible to calculate all possibilities, and the actions of other players are unknown. Thus, it is possible to gain big but also to lose just as big. In this case, Putin did not gamble – he was responsible for the fate of Russia. That is why he selected the surest option – to play for time.
Yes, the struggling Donbass gave Russia a gift of that extra year and paid for that year with its people’s blood. Now the time has come not just to pay back out debts. What has come is the moment of truth. Russia could not have counted to stretch the game of cat and mouse with Washington to extend the period of respite beyond 2015. We should consider ourselves lucky as it is. Russia is much stronger now and freed itself from the detrimental dependence of the dollar economy. The US has weakened so much that the economists that only a few years ago authoritatively pronounced even a thought of opposing the US to be impossible, given the size of US GNP, all of a sudden changed their minds and now pompously argue whether the US economy would crash this years or in 2016, and how exactly that would happen.
And now, finally, I have come to these few paragraphs that were the objective of this entire article. All written above serves the purpose of clarifying the train of thought. Let me remind you that, in my opinion, politicians always have a number of options that would allow them to ignore the real economic situation and the real needs of the national economy and to make willful decisions that, nevertheless, would be carried out and often lead to catastrophic consequences.
I mentioned Ukraine as an example. I will once again remind you that in this country with eradicated economy, empty treasury, destroyed political and administrative systems, where mercenaries mixed with gangs act in place of police or National Guard, in the country torn apart by the civil war, the politicians (weak politicians, including in the intellectual sphere) remain in their positions for almost a year and a half despite the fact that all their decisions without exception go against the interests of Ukraine, the national economy, the survival of the population, and even common sense. This is due to the stability resource of the state, which keeps on going by inertia when the state structures are essentially dead. Like a chicken that runs for a few minutes after its head has been cut off.
Please, recall that Ukraine was pushed into a war by the US that did not even bother to conceal that what they needed was not the war of Kiev against Donbass, but the war of Kiev with Russia.
Currently the US is on the verge of economic collapse and, possibly, territorial disintegration due to the demise of the political and administrative structure. This scenario is real and America is facing it in the near future. Obama would be happy if that does not come to pass on his watch. Therefore, strategically the US lost the war to Russia without firing a single shot. However, Germany also strategically lost the War in 1943. That did not prevent Hitler from trying to win it tactically in the Battle of Kursk. We cannot say that such an attempt was completely without hope of success. Germans created a real threat and in places almost breached the front. The encirclement and destruction of the Kursk group of armies would have led to the loss of almost a third of the manpower and weapons that the USSR had at the front. That would have been the third massive defeat starting from 1941. The country’s resources, including human, are not unlimited. Hitler simply tried to force the USSR to lose as much as in 1941 – manifold more soldiers than Germany. The losses at ratio of 5:1 would have bled the USSR dry before Germany lost the ability to resist, so it would have been necessary to seek peace with Hitler.
Similarly, the Americans are trying to tactically win the war they lost strategically. The main approach has not changed – Russia must be at war. Only now the EU is being recruited in addition to Ukraine, at least the Eastern European members. Those who do not believe this, try counting how many times during the past three months different politicians from various EU countries have declared that Europe does not want a war with Russia, particularly for Ukraine. When there is no danger of war, nobody talks about it. Have you heard anybody in Mongolia stating three times a day that they have no intentions of going to war with Russia?
Since neither I, nor you, Putin, Obama, anybody, except God, knows when the US economy collapses, in 2016 or in 2020 – the US needs to organize a war already this year. They will not fight directly, naturally (somebody else must pull chestnuts out of the fire for them). But the war must start – there is no other chance for the US to save itself.
That is why I am saying that once again we lack an extra year. Whatever happens with the dollar and the US economy, the Kiev regime has no chance to survive until 2016. It already survived twice as long as should be reasonably counted on. The crash of Ukraine, which became Stalingrad for the US – a symbolic place – defeat there would lead to the loss of face and catastrophic decline in its prestige (too much was invested by the US into the Kiev coup and the support of the Nazi regime, too deeply their allies were dragged into the crisis – in general, too much was involved), as well as automatic refusal of Europe to participate further in the American ventures. That is why Holland and Merkel helped Putin to play for time with Minsk-2. The loss of Europe would mean the loss of global dominance and crash of the US financial, economic and political system witnessed by the entire stunned humankind.
Considering that the Baltic limitrophe states are ready to share the fate of Ukraine, that a Maidan is being prepared for Belorussia for the purpose of partial engagement of the Russian resources, that Poland is being embroiled deeper and deeper in supporting Kiev, that the US is pushing Romania (jointly with Moldova) to repeat the “feat” of Saakashvili, only not in Ossetia but in Transnistria, – all the elements of the war to be initiated came together. The US will be coercing the old Europe into participating as the events unfold. What is important is to have at least one country-member of the EU officially at war with Russia.
Since there are the suicidal Baltics among the newly acquired members of the EU, the war is at our doorsteps. It may not happen. During the past years, the Russian leadership got the country out of such traps that nothing seems to be impossible. However, Russia never since 1945 came to a war as close as today.
We need to survive this summer. After that the danger of war should decline. Unfortunately, we are not the only ones who know that, and there is really no party of peace in Washington.
Rostislav Ishenko: The analysis is right on and his timing of when all-h-ell-breaks loose is probable. The racial situation fueled by Republican sponsored pressures on the poorest section of society ( repeal of food stamps, shutting off water for unpaid utility bills, scaling back of long term unemployment benefits) is bursting the seams of the society. Even the working class members of the white tribe here in the USA are getting a clue—the police see themselves as a paramilitary force at odds with the populace they supposedly serve.
Yes, Much of the information available to the elite ( and there are those who really do know the score)is not available to us. However, one can look at metaphor and at patterns in the history of the USA. The recent directing of ships to the Strait of Hormuz is a familiar theme in the historical design of the USA. Many wars have been either begun or escalated over sea/water related incidents: Boston Tea Party; War of 1812-Tripoli; Civil War -Charleston Harborp; war of 1898 the Maine in Havana Harbor; Lusitania 1918, Peal Harbor 1942; Tonkin Gulf ( blatant false flag) in the war against N. Vietnam.. The more recent desert wars were planned wars over a period of time–the run up to the 2nd Iraq war took 2 years.. Watch for action in the Strait of Hormuz and the Caspian sea area soon or by the summer at the latest.
I wish for the simplicity of States as the ultimate actors. But I believe that the same international cabal of bankers, etc merely use US and some other States as their proxies. Starikov’s online book explains this well.
Things are not so simple as they seem: US weakly strikes ISIS, but secretly supports it. When Ukraine and the EU act against their own interests they are not the decision-makers; the US is.
Yet when the US acts against Russia everyone assumes that the US is the decision-maker and opponent. When the dollar collapses all will be well.
Can you not see that the US economy and the dollar are being taken down on purpose? Even now the US economy could be saved by investing in infrastructure and putting people back to work. Instead, newly-created credits are wasted in speculation and ponzi-scheme uneconomic fracking– and invested in China.
WWII provided the chaos to compel most countries to surrender financial/monetary sovereignty to the IMF. The collapse of the dollar and perhaps a military confrontation among major powers will create the chaos to force more rigorous global monetary union. Greece has found out how much political freedom remains in a financial dictatorship.
The US expresses fear of China as a rival, while for decades investing 100s of billions in China– even in R & D! (not mere outsourcing of cheap manufacturing) And still continuing. What is going on here?
The evidence at this site is unmistakable. https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-297-china-and-the-new-world-order/
We had better study matters further. I don’t think we have all the pieces.
I doubt we would ever have all the pieces to accurately predict the future Penelope. People like the Saker and Rostislav Ishchenko do great job on analysing what is known, but there is always a lot of unknowns.
Once a war starts, which going by the history of human character will happen, anything is possible.
Just a notice:
Stalin needed approx. 3-8 weeks only,
to launch an attack on Germans/Hitler.
(source: T.Snyder, M.Solonin, V.Suvorov etc.)
I am not going to believe this bull!
Stalin had anyone who was gung ho for war executed and the lesser officers put in prison. The USSR was in no shape for a major war. How they won the war with Japan was only because of the way it was waged and not because they were a great army, that only took place much later when the weak were withered down. If you have something that says some of the top people who waged WW2 was for starting the war then I can believe it but I doubt you can. Stalin was scared to death of Hitler.
Everything else is western propaganda on the heels of the US liberated Europe and won WW2.
Yet lost like 1/2 a million men while the USSR lost over 10 mil soldiers. Talk about exceptional soldering.. A 2 front major world war and losing less than they did in the civil war.
The idea that the “American economy is being deliberately taken down” is a favorite propaganda meme of pro-Americans shills (aka Anglo American imperialists) from Alex Jones to the James Corbett.
At base, they are laughably trying to portray the American Empire as the ultimate Victim.
The same America that has economically raped and looted other nations the world over is now the virtuous victim that is being set up!
If you believe that, I have some Wall Steet stock I want to sell you … from Enron and Bernie Madoff.
This meme is just an economic variation of the warped national ideology called American Victomology.
Just as America bombs, invades, and colonizes nations around the world while ludicrously proclaiming itself to be militarily threatened by these nations, so too does America also ludicrously claim to be an economic victim no less, despite its repeated economic plunder of the world!
See John Perkins Confessions of an Economic HItman for one example.
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions
When you analyze it, American Victimology is very cunning meme designed to downplay and divert responsibility away from America’s crimes: “Forget about America’s many atrocities. It’s America that is the REAL VICTIM,” so these people insist.
As such, it is a favored meme of the phony “alternative” media among Anglo-Americans, who after all, are Anglo Americans and have a vested interest in covering up their own crimes.
As American capitalism implodes, this propaganda meme will increasingly be peddled by Americans of all stripes, as it is a self-serving and comforting delusion for them to cling to–rather than facing the hard reality that “American capitalist democracy” is simply a diseased system at its core–and has always been.
Anonymous, You’re in error in your characterization of James Corbett. He is entirely outpoken about the guilt of the gansters who are controlling the US govt. Further he ought not be mentioned in the same breath w Alex Jones.
James Corbett is a serious researcher. The material at the link I posted is factual evidence & does not rely upon James’s or anyone’s analysis. It’s evidence. For example published material specifying the amounts of investment into the Chinese economy by the largest transnational corporations, the approximate dates, etc. It is quite clear from the compilation of these reports that the major players in the US economy have pursued across decades an organized plan of building up China, while expressing fears about China’s progress & growth!
The Corbett Report is one of the few organizations available as a link from Globalresearch.ca. This is an extraordinary recommendation. I am very sorry to hear “Anonymous” mis-characterize James Corbett. If you can find a single example of his writings being inaccurate or bearing the sorry interpretation which have falsely stated here, I would like to see a reference to it.
Are you trying to impede others looking at the link by impeaching it in advance?
“You’re in error in your characterization of James Corbett. He is entirely outpoken about the guilt of the gansters who are controlling the US govt. “
Corbett is outspoken alright … in limiting guilt only to the government or elites, but not to the Anglo American Axis nations themselves.
-Does Corbett call out America itself or its allies (like his own native Canada) as being guilty?
-Or does he try to damage control guilt only to the political elite or government–like you do?
-Does Corbett question the morally illegitimate nature of Anglo-American democracy and freedom as a belief system?
-Or does he spin doctor the issue by insisting that Anglo democracy and freedom are legitimate but these noble ideals (sic) have been “hijacked” by elites and need to be restored–as if it’s possible to restore what has never existed?
-Does Corbett expose the fact that America and its entire way of life are based upon the exploitation of the rest of the world through both financial bloodsucking (Dollar Imperialism) and Capitalist plunder (aka the Washington Consensus)?
-Or, like most pro-Americans, does he divert attention from this reality by peddling the America-As-Victim meme in which the innocent USA is economically being “set up to fall” or is being “sold out” through phenomenon like outsourcing, off-shoring, etc?
-Does Corbett oppose the capitalist system itself and the Anglo American Empire that rules over it?
-Or does he insist that it’s only Globalism that is the problem–and certainly not capitalism nor Anglo-Americanism in general?
-Does Corbett admit that his bete noire, the New World Order, itself is merely a political mask for Anglo American Empire?
-Or does he try to stand reality on its head by asserting that the New World Order is something external to Anglo-American nations–and even that Anglo Americans are the victims of the hated NWO?
-Does Corbett call out the morally bankrupt nature of America as a nation and people since this criminal entity was spawned over 200 years ago?
-Or like most pro-American shills, does he alibi for America by insisting that the USA is essentially good, but that it’s been “hijacked” or “lost its way” from the Founding Fathers’ original vision–neglecting the reality that these beloved Founding Fathers themselves were slaveowners, genociders, ethnic cleansers?
These questions above should be applied to each and every so-called “alternative media” mouthpiece or supposed anti-establishment activists/individuals—including yourself. The answers might be very revealing.
The majority of the Anglo-American alternative media ain’t so alternative.
They are a Controlled Opposition. They promote themselves as media critics or even dissidents in order to divert blame from the Anglo American Empire, which they are a part of—and which their own relatively cushy Middle Class way of life are based upon.
But I suspect this is why you are so adamant in covering for Corbett.
You are right, perhaps, in impugning the much vaunted cushy Middle Class way of life — a way of life that has to be the result of someone somewhere getting the shorter end of the stick — even hit by said stick . Do you suggest we espouse a pagan “warrior ethos”? Or are there other alternatives?
“Or are there other alternatives?”
Change is by definition “unsettling”, and assays of covert/overt modes of coertion context specific.
Perhaps you inhabit the geographical/ideological “we hold these truths to be self-evident” environment, where modes of coertion include but are not necessarily restricted to:
connating doubt as adverse/best avoided/counter-productive/frightening,
insecurity – including subsumed notions such as does my ass look big in this, or do I “need” to drive a Jaguar,
reliance on and representation by “leaders” – also known as living in the digital instead of the analogue -,
and time management – time being life.
Myopia is therefore understandable.
The alternatives lie within the lateral process of transcendence from “exceptionalism” to equal and different; the initial steps facilitated through co-operation lie in minimising immersion within, interfaces with, and vulnerability to, the “exceptionalist” system .
Test the hypotheses if you are so minded, or restrict efforts to diffusion/displacement strategies, including “easier said than doneness”.
Within present conceptions the following may appear oxymorons and/or tautologies:
Lateral change is constantly lateral, an important perceived variable is the velocity of change.
Oh No! it’s you again!
Why do you suppose no-one wants to hold a dialogue with you?
You write dozens of words that do not impress the others on this site.
Are you a Bot? ….or simply practicing dictionary texting??
Excellent comment! I agree with every point.
James Corbett is an extraordinary nice guy. And an anarchist! He favors do-it-yourself solutions, personal sovereignty, peer2peer networks over oligarchical structures of any sort.
Corbett’s take on China is interesting and worth listening to. He makes a convincing case that the “5th column” is in China even stronger and deeper embedded in the power apparatus, than in Russia.
Zweister, Thank you for speaking out about James Corbett against the troll.
James & others have criticized Russia’s security forces about the Moscow apt bombing. It seems that all intell agencies sometimes stage false flags. In this particular case they were caought red-handed by the police while laying the explosives. I think it was to raise public opposition to the Chechens during that war.
For those interested you can either watch the Youtube posted by the troll or Globalresearch.ca had an article on it that you can search for within the site.
I think it’s necessary for us to do more than just cheer Russia & China on. Both have limitations due to their “5th cols”. Obviously the vast investment aid given by US bankers/transnationals must have been accompanied by an army of US-educated Chinese taking up positions of power in China. China is NOT opposing the IMF system. We have to know more about what is REALLY being constructed.
Anonymous, You are obviously trying to muddy my oiginal post w a “laundry list” having no relevance to it.
I made 3 points:
1. The deception is typically deeper than we think, frequently having an additional layer in which the international bankster cabal is acting thru States. (The gangsters who control the US, etc are themselves evil of course)
2. There is evidence in its obviousness that the US economy is being taken down purposely by its Federal Reserve & govt as a step to a global single econ sys w single currency.
3. The simple idea being sold us that US opposes the rise of China may be untrue: As demonstrated by Corbett Report 297 the Fortune 500 and banksters have pumped 100s of billions into China investments over decades — including into R & D capacity of China. I have no explanation, but like James, think it necessary to look at ALL the facts available.
“If you can find a single example of his writings being inaccurate or bearing the sorry interpretation which have falsely stated here, I would like to see a reference to it.”
P.S. Then you best check out this video of James Corbett on Russia and Putin. Corbett initially postures as a critic of the mainstream media propaganda against Russia … only to promote his own anti-Russia/Putin allegations in the second half of his video.
Corbett thus asserts that Russia was behind the 2012 plane crash that killed members of the Polish regime; Russia staged its own 9-11 (false flag terrorism) with the Moscow apartment bombings; and smears Russia’s idea of a Eurasian Union as a criminal project like the European Union; in addition to the standard “Putin is a repressive ruler” meme (carefully ignoring that Putin has over 80% approval ratings among Russians)! This section begins at about 20 minutes into the video.
The Enemy of My Enemy
You go to hand it to Corbett. He is playing a very cunning game.
Corbett attempts to draw a false immoral equivalence between Putin and Obama as well as between America and Russia. The net effect of this is to discredit Russia and its allies among those who oppose the Anglo American Empire.
Cui Bono? Who benefits from this?
Why, the Anglo Americans of course!
And just by wild coincidence, who is James Corbett? An Anglo Canadian.
Corbett even uses standard Anglo weasel words like “the West” or “globalism” instead of calling out his own native Canada, Anglo American Empire, or even Anglo-Zionism by name.
I wonder why that is.
In his video, Corbett also talks about how “we” should not believe in Putin or “we” should not think that Russia is a principled opponent of the so-called West, etc.
The question, however, is WHO IS THIS “WE” that Corbett refers to?
Corbett of course claims he refers to all of humanity, but in practice, he is talking to Anglo Americans like himself–and ultimately serves THEIR interests.
I note that you follow the use of this construct usually extrapolated by the inexperienced and the passive.
It is ever satisfying to be underestimated; where as/whilst those of the chutzpah persuasion appear to disagree.
What is chutzpah ?
If someone who just murdered his parents argues in the court that he deserves clemency since being a complete orphan.
The problem is that Corbett equates the gangsters who rule the Anglo-American countries with those in Russia and China. That is not a reasonable comparison. And he should know better, as Ry Dawson is not far away from him near Osaka. Dawson points out that the story about the Russian apartment bombings and the polonium case are not what the supposed “alternative” media like to say:
There is a huge industry badmouthing Putin, as well as Russia and China. They aren’t perfect, but Putin did what had to be done in Chechnya, just as Assad has in Syria. The criminals are in places like DC and London for ginning up these travesties. When Corbett talks about Putin’s billions in Cyprus, what proof does he offer? Zero.
Also, Corbett is from Calgary, which is in the most “yellow and blue” part of Canada. The Ukrainian influence is huge. So all these refugees after the war settled there. Corbett gets to hear their tales of how Russia is terrible, but what about the tales of how these folks were the worse of the Nazi army?
Paul II, I’m really not informed on the Moscow apt bombing. I read only 1 article on it– in Globalresearch.ca. However, I don’t think it’s really important one way or another. So what if the Russian security services do sometimes misbehave?
If someone says they do misbehave, or did in 1 instance, that shouldn’t make you decide they are anti-Russian or pro-US or playing a game or being insincere. It’s necessary to consider a variety of sources of info. You won’t get very far if you shunt aside a valuable source cuz they disagree w you on one not very essential point.
James is an anarchist, like many other Resistors. I am not; I consider the nation-State the ensurer of our rights and a method of organization for our common welfare– even tho the US has ceased to be that in many respects. But he’s a good researcher & I think he’s found out things I need to listen to– at the very least I need to consider them.
I have to disagree with you, Penelope.
Perhaps an amplification of your hypotheses can be encouraged through the question – When and why did the “holocaust” become “shoah”?
Or if nearer to “home” trace the trajectories of mutations of the “Vietnam” narrative from 1950 to 2015. Christian Appy’s American Reckoning may aid as a start point.
As you would probably expect Mr. Perkins data is presently perhaps more useful as descriptions of half-lifes and previous trajectories given that the strategies have mutated through challenge since Mr. Perkins activities in the “field” – the “experience” in/of Russia 1991 to 1998 may give interesting examples to enhance/modify his original text – but analogues of the Boston Consulting Group still form part of the strategies, the emphases of which currently are apparently giving greater assay to the overt rather than the covert aspect of covert/overt coertion.
Since this emphasis is seen in some quarters as requiring at least a greater admixture of the covert/ideological, the propagation of the victim notion will likely increase.
However the ideological “strategy” remains linear and the world is lateral, which likely was the catalyst for encouraging different assay.
On your disease metaphor I would suggest that understanding that virulence like admixture mutates over time as a consequence of challenge is always germane.
The current/ongoing debate is not restricted to bombing, but bombing is largely the theme perceived by the authors of the paper below:
Sometimes obfuscation can be achieved by sequencing, thereby limiting perception of cross-references, hypothesis testing and development.
For example in response to
“This meme is just an economic variation of the warped national ideology”
Perhaps some have authored and/or perceived incidences of “confrontational” responses to comments, reflecting subsumed ideological norms of “competition”, the “individual”, “losing”, and “winning”, hence limiting “co-operation” and transcendence.
Perhaps some of the works of Alice Miller and others may shed some light on this, since to transcend ideologies it is not sufficient merely to describe them, although the opponents appear to deem that it is so in conjunction with “eliminating” the “challengers”.
That no man shall buy or sell save he who use the signifier of all life – carbon – the carbon dollar….every work and every thought…right hand and forehead…the antibaptist now making straight path…followed by one whose name equals triangle…go figure.
Penelope, I think the State and the money interest are two largely congruent channels and at this time in history one is trying to control the other completely – has been for some time in fact – but is not quite there yet. Alongside the movement of military and state actions there is also the movement of money, sometimes in the same directions, sometimes in the opposite.
Either way, I don’t see a conflict in the two streams of activity you describe. They are different actors, all actors have their own agendas, and the world is still big enough that it’s not quite all one vanilla pudding yet.
I think the US will get used up by its parasite and thrown away. No one has the slightest interest in “saving” the US. That would be a State thing, and the State is not in control of America, the money interest is. The dollar will swap for Special Drawing Rights, and most of the world will sigh in relief. The common people of the US will get their country back to rebuild, maybe.
To ramble on a little here – I think for the recent history of several hundred years in the European sphere of power at least, kings and their bankers have collaborated to wage wars of conquest, each with different long-range horizons, but both with convergent, immediate aims.
I never heard a story where a king successfully cheated a banker, but plenty where bankers betrayed kings. Bankers have tended to let the kings get on with armies and taxes and all the administration of affairs, all in return for the money-changing franchise.
I personally suspect that Zionism is a reflection of the Rothschild fortune becoming so big that it created its own corpus of actors, able to mingle directly in the myriad details of state. But even now, still the State is a powerful force in international affairs, and not a completely predictable or controllable one – or so I theorize. It seems to me the entire effort towards the so-called new world order is to eliminate this pesky state, with its tiresome propensity to listen to its people.
This new world order I always call the NEXT world order, simply another version release, with improved oppression against the poor people, and possibly the rich too.
Anyway, the west will act as it acts against Russia and China, and all the plans of the kings are seen by the bankers, and are allowed, or financed or forestalled or outright prohibited – or to the bankers’ regret cannot be prevented – according to who’s on top as the play goes down.
Sorry not to be more articulate in this comment.
Well put. A number of interests, none of which have total control of the future.
And going by the media/information warfare happening, backing by the populations/masses is essential for anything to succeed.
Peter, that’s a point I had never quite considered – that it takes the acquiescence of the people for anything to succeed. Which is the only reason for the propaganda wars, of course.
Funny, isn’t it, that wrongdoing requires the protective coloration of righteousness in order to act wrongly?
Does this say something about the underlying principle of life on this Earth? About the futility of evil, and the banality of the intelligence that puts its faith in evil?
Richard Wolff again goes over some things in his April Global Update.
The US is a ‘mature’ economy — no growth, while the corporations have been shipping production overseas, largely China, for 30 – 40 years. Now they are shifting the consumer and of their business away from the US too, as it falls into ‘third world’ status. Meanwhile we also have the international financialization, as well manufacturing globalization.
China may be a rival for the US government and some others, but not for banksters and corporations, internationalized, who are instead just shifting their base of capitalist operations.
re: “What is going on here?”
Life is complicated, and there are many players and many factors. I have been involved in R&D work with China over the years, and would say that Western corporations and the US government do not trust the Chinese, and will not give top-level technology control to them. A lot of what is called R&D is not at a level to impact geostrategy, and there are too many sources for the technology.
So a big company like Microsoft having “development centers” in China is nothing special. A lot of the work there may be for localization of their products for Chinese language and legal needs. It isn’t like secret NSA stuff is done there.
The next thing is that big money groups have a choice of investing and getting a certain amount of control or not investing till their leverage would be weaker. Money is always going to go where the opportunities are, so the US could have waited, and slowed China down somewhat, but then had far less influence down the road.
Strategists for Western power groups have challenges and constraints. As a topical example, should the West back Iran or not? Israel and Iran are competitors, and you can’t really have both. Just standard geopolitics. Perhaps the bigger lesson from this article is that Putin and his allies deceived the West. The pro-Western group in and around the Kremlin was not as strong as imagined. From this mistake came other errors, such as thinking that China could not resist later, even if someone like Xi came to power.
The point of taking over — or destroying — a country is to make it safe for corporations (wealthy) to operate and exploit there. This makes the New American Century ideologues happy, but the key group is the money, who use countries like pawns. They will introduce technology once they have control of the place.
But keep in mind that manufacturing and financial are rivals too, both trying to control a country’s military and other resources (which also sets up rivalry with the state people).
Check out Douglas Reed’s “The Controversey of Zion”. As a war correspondent during the 30’s and 40’s he knew all the players and pent 3 years getting the evidence up til 53. he lays out the scam, from the start to the 50’s and the future was writ large even then.
Google it, its and easy find in pdf form.
This is absolutely absurd. Pure conspiracy theory. Corbett is dead wrong. Is he a CIA agent?
so the long,tremendous efforts of the empire elites and their zionist cores for the last 25 years were A) A failure
or B) a simple fraud or make-believe.
The first alternative provides the reasoning basis of Ivshenko and saker´s.
The second one embeds , NOT the calculation, the mere possibility but the certainty… of the 1%ers
being ABLE to successfully invade, perforate inner circles and dominate the future chinese and russian decision making elites in the decades to come. No less.
Is that exactly what you think penelope?
Not accurately? but that´s what I deduct from it.
Anonymous, I don’t have a dogmatic belief about what’s happening. But there is very ample evidence that the goal is a global oligarchy w a very reduced population.
In order that a small group should be able to produce such an outcome, big-picture disinfo is required.
I don’t believe that the worldview that we of the Resistance espouse is complete. It’s being sold us by MSM as a cartoon.
Consider only 1 idea: That the US economy is moving towards collapse and the Fed and govt can’t prevent it. Now LOOK at what they are doing. They canot possibly believe that continuing their present course will rejuvenate it. If you look at their actions skeptically it is obvious that they are intentionally taking it down.
Consider another part of the MSM cartoon that we are asked to believe: That the US accidentally built up China. They meant only to outsource some cheap manufacturing, but somehow China got away from them. Now LOOK at James’s evidence in his episode 297 and elsewhere; it certainly appears that it was done on purpose.
Plus, during the Clinton years there was direct weapons technology transfer.
We believe that China supports the multipolar world that Putin has spoken of. But examine the economics that they are advocating. In episode 297 James presents an initiative by a group of countries to revolt against the IMF system. China did not join it. China wants an increased voice in forming IMF policies.
I do not have a completed analysis, but I am continuing to gather data– powerful data that contradicts my worldview is data that I must consider.
James latest is from 3 days ago. I don’t agree w everything in it, but I find some of it highly informative.
Excellent article! It explains everything in a simple and forceful way, and it takes you step by step to the final conclusion.
I know that this is not related, but a Canadian-Ukrainian who comes to fix my computer, when I told him that probably president Putin will be elected again in 2018, replied ” oh no! he will be killed before!” I was shocked by how sure he was…Saker, is the President aware of this real possibility?
Well, I’m sure he, like the rest of us, has heard those ‘wrong plane’rumours re MH-17..and precautions are in place.
Re Putin as but a covert strategist for globalism through transnationals: I don’t think he would be wise just yet to ‘clarify’ and so allows those ‘samer’ rumours to run. Same for Xi.
But I personally think the signs of challenge to the matrix are there: the propaganda is so extreme, from the blatant to the subtle, it gives me hope.
eimar, Or is the extreme propaganda there to convince us that reality is a simple good-guy, bad-guy theatre? No need to look under the surface. The US economy is destructing cuz the bad guys are just too stupid to fix it. They’re stupid & we don’t have to consider what they may be doing. They’re so stupid they are just sitting there waiting helplessly for the dollar to collapse & have no idea whatever what they will do then. And what is Rothschild doing? Well, he must be stupid too & just passively doing nothing.
Even becoming wealthy thru robbing and looting takes a certain amount of activity. They’ve shown massive intergenerational activity pursuing their economic & political ends. Now suddenly they’re passive? A few regime changes in the hinterlands & some shrill rhetoric while decisive events in US & China are “just happening”? I’ve studied these guys back to the 30s. They are telling us a story.
I personally believe a carbon currency is being seriously entertained by the current Masters of the Universe.
It has pros and cons in general i.e for the entire population of the globe. The same in particular, i.e for those Masters of the Universe.
Global warning/major environmental pollution are indisputable facts. Those facts can be used to either propel humankind to find solutions that are compatible with it’s needs or used by the M o t U to advance their own interests, namely exclusive power to shape the planet’s future and their own.
The indicators (to me) are that the M o t U, using neo-Mathusian rationales are promoting a depopulation agenda across a range of spectrums: social, political and economic. That’s why they are financing so many wars. That’s why they are promoting euthanasia, abortion-on-demand, legalized prostitution, corruption of children ( the latest is ‘sexual rights’ for children) and other social ills. That’s why they are actively promoting homosexuality: it diminishes the chances of procreating across populations and underwrites A.R.T. (Artificially Assisted Reproduction) as a ‘civil right’. It also normalizes eugenics (GMO lab embryos to be selectively grown as babies with genetic-engineering techniques).
All this requires a stupefied underclass, hence the re-feudalization of once-sovereign nations through austerity or straight up military intervention and the pro-legalization of drugs.
The Final Solution this time, is intended to be global.
So we are basically agreeing that there is an underlying agenda and that it’s architects are the 1%.
How does Putin factor in, and indeed the wealthy oligarchy of both China and Russia? There are bound to be elements that are either part of the agenda – even if they dislike some of the methods – or sympathetic to it.
Putin is not, I am as certain as I can be without knowing for sure, actively hostile to most, if not all of this agenda. I suspect Xi in many respects is too. A leader who wants to accelerate the development of an educated middle-class (whether they are carpenters, farmers or lawyers) is one who enables democratic control. And that is his avowed intent.
Carbon currency may well be the means to distribute global wealth more equitably – especially if it transfers to the currently exploited Global South – but that depends entirely on who is at the levers of control: without several locuii of control, subject to international parliamentary oversight, a Brave New World technocracy would rule the planet.
Putin said somewhere that he was looking for the golden mean. The putative rulers of the neo-Platonic World Republic seem to be doing their best to make it harder for him to find it.
So, no doubt in my mind who is on the side of the bedraggled, sometimes-blown-off-course angels. :)
That should read:
‘Putin IS’ (actively hostile) to the M o t U agenda.
But you probably gathered that from the context.
Thanks for tackling this herculean task.
:: = [virtual bear hug]
I can see two immediate danger points, where the US might instigate a European hot war against Russia. One is Kaliningrad, undermanned in Russian line units, only two brigades and a regiment, and difficult to reinforce. According to both English and Russian Wikipedia, the Poles have some 12 maneuver brigades. Other sources say they are about 30 % manned, the old Soviet model, dependent on mobilization to reach full strength, while a recent article says the Poles are re-registering some 900,00 reservists for possible mobilization. Polish military thinkers in the past year or so have discussed the necessity for a preemptive attack on Russia (i.e, Kaliningrad) if war seems imminent. Because of the disparity in forces right now, the Poles might be able to overrun Kaliningrad before the Russians could reinforce it.
The other of course is through the Donbass itself. There have been reports of a large Ukie armored build-up on the south-west sector of the front, above Novoazovksk, where the Russian border is close and the intervening strip thinly manned. One could envision the US instigating the Ukies to attack south-east, across the border to the Mius river, a natural defensive line against the Russians (the Germans held it several years in WW2), under the guise of enveloping the Donetsk “separatists” from the rear. The Russian strip between the border and the Mius is held only by border forces right now, so could be overrun fairly quickly. The Ukies would lose of course, but the US would have the war it wants.
Maybe I shouldn’t give them any ideas..
Kaliningrad already has nuke protection based there. Instant suicide to try to take it.
Donbass—no one is coming through the lines in mass enough to matter.
Without air support close in (helicopter gunships and A-10’s) an attack on the ground (which is all that may come) will be swallowed. The stakes for Russia are higher each time, but not the danger. The Russian generals and colonels running the war are perfectly capable of defeating anything sent into an offensive. Assaults are what Russian weapons are meant to chew up.
In fact, Minsk 2 limits an attack to a day or two of warfare before UNSC is on the Ukie’s ass. The Ukies will never be able to sustain an ongoing offensive. They are built to attack and die.
The war will continue as is. Artillery, snipers, sappers, saboteurs, gangsters assassinating people, and special operators playing war, something they found out at Debalcevo and the airport, that they are not very good at.
Next round of war will be like the others in outcome. Lots of death and destruction, Ukies lose more ground.
Voentorg versus Nazis. My money is on Voentorg.
Yours is a very sensitive and specific analysis. I share it. I should say I want to share it, for everybody’s sake.
Only I’m awfully sorry for the amount of suffering it implies for the people of Donbass. And also for the Ukranian conscripts.
I certainly agree with you that the Poles would likely lose, the Ukies also (as I said). But the US would have its war, if that’s what it is trying to instigate.
(Also, I’m not absolutely sure of nukes at Kaliningrad. The Washington Times, admittedly a Mooney paper, but one that often publishes hard news, as opposed to the rambling analysis if the Washington Post, a few years back made quite a to-do about some Russian move, I forget which, which implied they might store nukes at Kaliningrad, because somebody, maybe Yeltsin, had agreed that the Baltic would be nuclear free. At the time the Russians backed off, and swore they weren’t moving nukes there. Maybe things changed since then.)
You mean Yeltsin, the guy who was promised no former members/parts of Soviet (block) is/are going to be taken as NATO member(s)?
So Russia should “keep” its part of the deal but NATO can ignore it at will.
Instead of reading Washington Times (USA propaganda mouthpiece) you should listen to the Russian defense minister who recently stated that Russia has every right to locate any kind of weapon it estimate is necessary for its protection to any part of its territory (the issue was Krim but it could be applied to Kaliningrad as well) as comment to speculations about Russian nuclear warheads on Krim.
I’m not saying that Russia has nuclear warheads located in Kaliningrad but Russia will for sure not going to ask NATO for permission if/when it decides to (re)locate its military resources.
Kaliningrad doesn’t need nukes for any rational purpose. Modern non-nuclear Russian ballistic missiles are enough to utterly destroy any possible threat. They are terribly destructive weapons, extremely difficult to defend against. I see that Ukraine has tried several times to use the few 40-yr old missiles they discovered in their army depots, but with limited much success as it’s possible that the opposition has the ability to intercept them.
You are forgetting the fear factor i.e. the main reason for any country having stock of rockets armed with nuclear warheads. Deploying a division of iskander tactical missiles armed with nukes should be more then enough to cool down any reasonably sane hothead (high military commanders even in Poland are in worse case of such type) that could come up with an idea to overrun Kaliningrad.
That is much more effective (and in the long run probably cheaper) then relying on conventional warheads as deterring factor.
Yes, Russia has nukes in other parts of the country but having them in the very proximity of Warsaw is the ultimate fear factor and absolute insurance that no Polish general would ever consider attacking Kaliningrad.
“You mean Yeltsin, the guy who was promised no former members/parts of Soviet (block) is/are going to be taken as NATO member(s)?”
Accuracy is often to be recommended.
The promise was made to Messrs Gorbachev and Schevernadze.
Thanks for the correction :)
Of course, you are absolutely right.
To reply to all the various comments to my commentary: I completely agree. You all are much more expert at military analysis than I am. Although I was five years an “Intelligence Research Analyst / Foreign Language” in the 1960’s, I transferred to computer-system development thereafter, not only because of my engineering training, but also to get out of politicalization: the pressure back in the Vietnam era to “get on the team”, to see what was wanted. Although I spent my whole career in the two main intelligence organizations, first as a government employee, then a contractor, it was in a supporting role, not an analytical one..
Regarding the Washington Times, I used to read it at lunch for the comics and sports, different from the Post I read at breakfast. But it did publish a good bit of hard news without commentary, much more so than the Post, which except in the early 1970’s always hewed the party line..
Your reaction is kind of childish.
My comment/answer had nothing to do with your (military) analytical background.
I was just stating the obvious and I don’t need to be military expert for that. The part about Washington Times was just a joke.
I’m neither reading Washington Times nor W. Post and I have no intention to start with it any time soon (or ever :) ) … and this goes with any MSM (main-stream-media). I don’t own a TV-set (last time I had one was hmm 7-8 years ago) and I don’t even listen to radio (except for Radio Paradise :) ). So I’m no expert in WT or WP but I’m pretty confident that my statement about WT could apply to any (western) MSM. And yes, there are different shades of gray but those are still grey :)
I’m tempted to throw in words like ‘wolves’ and ‘sharks,’ but they’re honorable animals and don’t come even close to the stench of the morally corrupt banksters, that run their banks like the Strips’ casinos.
Yes, they love their ‘bulls’ and ‘bears’ [and a whole ff-ing set of other crapola], but above all, they love
mommymoney. Heck, even ponziman Madoff is hailed as a hero.
I think this scene from the flick ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ – Lunch Scene – WARNING contains strong, sexual explicit language that might offend someone, says it all.
That fact that the Jewish angle/author has been left out of the story, is fully self explanatory.
Anyway, that’s what happens when the tribe gets access to the cookie jar.
‘Munch on, ye god-fearing goy!‘ – the late Rabbi Wolfenstein
Thank you Saker and Eugenia. An excellent analysis. I’m saving this one. Ishchenko writes a memo to clarify his thinking, and cleans out every corner, arranges all the pieces, so as to be clear. Wonderful effort.
So the US is trying to win tactically the war it has already lost strategically – and it IS possible to prevail by such efforts, but this is the necessary perspective in which to understand current actions.
And Yanukovich failed to play the necessary part of his position, and so Russia’s counter to the coup was brought down. And yet in the Crimea documentary, Putin seems so mild and so fatalistically human about this. What kind of discipline does this require? If Ishchenko is correct, and the Russian deep state is playing a very long range game of deception and preparation, then the discipline in Putin is surely from his deep state acculturation itself.
And so Russia has played the killdeer bird for some years now, playing for time. The killdeer is the bird that feigns a broken wing to lure a predator away from its nest, and so save its family. A couple of times in this forum I called Strelkov a killdeer, for his constant pronouncements of doom, while behind his smokescreen enormous strength and capability were at work. Maybe Strelkov is more aligned with Kremlin thinking than we realize?
Just as the Kremlin allows the west to perceive a precarious balancing act between the 5th column on the one side and the savage siloviki on the other.
Ishchenko says that it has become fashionable to laugh at the concept that Putin and Russia have clever plans behind their apparent real time reactions and actions. I prefer to believe in the clever plans, of course, since I’m a big fan of the Russia team. The test of any theory is prediction, to have its forecasts vindicated by real events. So Ishchenko is either right or wrong, and we shall see.
This entire strategy of the Kremlin based on Ischenko’s article is predicated on America collapsing in the next 5years. The author makes no assertion that Russia or any other state will invade the American mainland or militarily effect this expected collapse through open warfare. It requires a suspension of disbelief or at least a healthy dose of faith to grant credibility to this plan. The simple fact is the Americans are better positioned single handedly than all their viable opposition combined, from economic resources to military strength. They have less structural vulnerabilities than both China and Russia, when you strip away the propaganda and the veneers. The worst that could happen, if this strategy of leaving them to collapse from the weight of their own weaknesses is to be followed to its logical conclusion, is that they would retreat from their global hegemonic frontiers to regroup in their home base. Counting on the masses revolting in America is a baseless assertion, where is the internal threat? Since the U.S civil war, the police state has only increased in power and efficiency. Even the Vietnam experience, with 60,000 dead soldiers and a practical coup d’état at the helm, never came close to threatening the power of the state. Just how is this monstrosity supposed to collapse without at least twice that many American legionnaires in body bags from the frontiers ( twice to account for the population growth since Vietnam). If inertia and internal decomposition are the criteria, then it is more probable that China and Russia would collapse long before America does, based on structural durability of the respective police states versus mass discontent within their populations. For my part, I give more credence to scenarios that place emphasis on actual external forces combatting and smashing the hegemon, than any cunning plans that start from the assumption that America will collapse from systemic failure etc. Even the USSR, didn’t collapse without massive external pressures, neither did land-locked nazi Germany, resource starved Japan or the British empire. All empires from the Romans to Napoleon, right down to the British empire, had to be crushed by massive external pressures combined with serious military defeats. America would have to be the first hegemon in history, to peacefully self destruct while all their competitors passively looked on and prayed for divine intervention. Highly improbable, not least because unlike its predecessors, the American empire is the first truly global hegemon of its kind, a state doesn’t achieve such a status on the modern geopolitical stage by being weaker and more prone to implosion than the lesser empires before it. Frankly, Saker’s prediction of Russia willing to sacrifce her population in the role of the sacrificial lamb to take down the hegemon sounds more credible than this self destruct theory, it at least presents an external force besides inertia, which is consistent with history’s lesson on how empires are taken down. Can anyone point out an empire in history that died from systemic failure alone per the authors prediction?
You are missing the fact that there would be external (and internal) pressures once the weakness caused problems. The Chechen wars occurred once Russia was weak. If the US Navy could not dominate the oceans, that alone would change the entire situation everywhere.
So it is a strawman argument to ask for a case where systemic failure alone caused a collapse, as the rot from within causes the later problems.
Fair enough, but how do you or Ischenko propose to take back control of the oceans from the U.S. Navy without open warfare? They aren’t very likely to relinquish this vital component of their hegemonic power without a fight realistically speaking. The British empire, tiny resource deprived island that she was withstood threat after threat until WWII physically broke her spine. Same for Japan, it took atomic bombs and a near annihilation of its imperial forces. This is the reason every other state gives these naval powers such a wide berth, it simply isn’t true that they will die of old age, a force of avengers must be raised to physically strangle and kill America, all else is unfortunately hopeful posturing.
“Ischenko propose to take back control of the oceans from the U.S. Navy”
If you are looking at Mercators projection turn it upside down.
I don’t propose that Russia can take control of the oceans. As Admiral Rickover said, “There are two types of vessel: submarines and targets.” So Russia needs more and better submarines to limit the effectiveness of the US’s aircraft carriers.
But the obvious answer is that Eurasia is going to build alternatives. Pipelines, fast roads, heavy rail, fast rail, canals, new islands in the South China Sea, new routes using the Arctic, whatever it takes. China probably has more dollars to spend than time left before the US has to stop what is going on.
All empires have a tough time once they are overextended. Once the worldwide dollar standard is replaced, that ocean dominance will be an expensive thing to maintain. Strengths can become weaknesses when money gets tight.
I don’t think anyone dies of AIDS, but of the opportunistic diseases one gets when the immune system is impaired. But there are also auto-immune diseases where the immune system attacks the body, arthritis, for one, but others much deadlier (perhaps cancer, as an internal immune disease)…
cops killing citizens, banksters taking homes, unemployment and death from malnutrition, collapsing bridges and highways, cutting off water to those who can’t pay bills — and always the threat of civil war.
We should not mistake scavengers for attackers.
CunningPlans, your comment is so good that I had to go back and re-read the article, and your comment, a couple of times, to get it all in perspective. Ishchenko is not talking about the collapse of the empire in the way you’re describing it – although what you’re saying seems perfectly correct to me.
We’re only talking about a financial collapse, a fall of the dollar from global reserve currency – and presumably the Russians are familiar with the dollar’s eventual replacement by Special Drawing Rights, since everyone else in the world seems to be. This fall denotes also a shortage of international resources to conduct proxy wars.
The Russian concept of victory over its enemies is peace with its partners. This is a concept unheard-of in the lore of the West. And yet it forms the baseline strategy for Russia. That’s what I’ve come to learn, and what Ishchenko reinforces here. It’s a hard thing to grasp if your mind is filled with war and zero-sum calculations.
The US empire won’t fall apart like other empires because it never was like other empires. It never was an empire of conquest, merely a hegemony of jealousy. It created a different kind of conquest, one based on money. When the money falls, runs the theory, all manner of collateral collapse occurs.
The Russian plan is to make its defense perfect. The plan is fully founded on the actively diminishing power of the US. These are two intersecting axes on a chart. 2020 is the sweet spot, certainly from the Russian defense end, probably from the US offensive end.
True, there are all those US bases around the world, but who of any sovereign character and with a bit of gumption takes the US military seriously? When there’s no money to fund the bases, the troops will come home, probably on planes begged from the host country – or Russia in a humanitarian mood.
I do like what you’re saying about the internal resilience and stability of the US. I live here and I think you’re absolutely correct. I’m trying to support the article, which I think is correct. But I must say that your comment forces me to rethink the nature of the inevitable US “collapse”.
Grieved, thanks for that illuminating perspective on the Russian mindset, it helps a lot to Understand the article from that vantage point. You mention a financial collapse as opposed to physical collapse and point to ” …This fall denotes also a shortage of international resources to conduct proxy wars…” As the basis of your argument in favor of this expected collapse. Where is this shortage of resources that’ll lead to the fed printing machine failing to print more dollars? I’ve heard from Starikov as well this idea that the source of the financial collapse will be insufficient physical assets around the globe to back up the fiat dollar. I don’t see any of the resources diminishing in a way critical enough to cause such a systemic failure. There are untapped reserves of oil popping up in so many easily accessible parts of the globe, lots of arable land and so much natural resources that they have to pretend there’s a deficit in order to inflate prices. Maybe we’re all confusing an insufficient global pie to feed the global population, which I might grudgingly concede to be probable, with an insufficient global pie to feed the hegemon and her predatory associates. Do you see the distinction here? It’s the same fallacy behind the concept of imposing economic sanctions to force regime change in a belligerent totalitarian state. The general population might starve, but that in no way guarrantees the destruction of the totalitarian regime from starvation by itself. There are far too many fertile and resource rich areas of the globe, defenseless and impoverished states that have yet to be plundered, to presume that the predators will be starved into extinction before their victims do. I think Ischenko’s benchmark of the color revolutions as his evidence of imminent systemic failure is flawed. There are too many other variables and possible reasons for this seemingly unprovoked aggression, with the most obvious being the fact that it is in the nature of predators to prey on weakness. America and her cohorts could’ve simply smelled weakness in the former soviet space, and attacked instinctively. I just can’t see how the predators can be desperate when there is so much easy plunder left unharvested the world over.
CP, I didn’t see this before my first response (which is inexplicably located below). I thank you for well stated, refined arguments both above and below.
“Where is this shortage of resources that’ll lead to the fed printing machine failing to print more dollars?”
In the first place, wealth can only be “created” in one of three ways: You have to either Dig it, Grow it, or Make it. There is no 4th way. All other economic activity is built on the surplus of at least one of those 3.
Yes, the planet is big, but the industrial age was built on easily and cheaply extracted resources. 100yrs ago, one could drill a hole in the ground in PE, TX or OK and a geyser of oil would literally explode from the ground. Today, we’re drilling 5000 meters under the sea, through frozen tundra, digging up sands glued together with bituminous gunk, poisoning the aquifers, or (in SA) pumping in 7-10 barrels of sea water for every barrel of oil out, to get what we need.
No, the oil won’t run out. We will never see the “last barrel” from the “last well” but there will be an ever increasing difficulty to get the leverage that cheap and available energy lent to building an industrial civilization in the space of a couple of centuries.
One of the most powerful uses for cheap energy was the enormous multiplier effect it had in the extraction of other resources. Cheap energy led directly to cheap iron, copper, nickel, etc and now those resources are facing a similar situation. We’re going after ever poorer quality ores in ever more remote and difficult environments, using ever more of that increasingly expensive energy to get what’s needed. Indeed, the ores we are now processing would scarcely been recognized as ores by our grandfathers for the simple reason that they couldn’t have imagined that expending the energy required to extract and refine them would be profitable.
The problem is not that any of these resources are lacking, it is that they are lacking in the form and location where their presence can be leveraged at the rate we were able to leverage them at the start of the 20th century. We are the heirs of a one-off boom that can simply never be repeated, at least on anything other than a geological timeline.
A couple decades ago, we started looking behind the sofa cushions for loose change to maintain our lifestyle. Instead of facing our predicament squarely, we “financialized” everything in the “hunt for yield”. We did so in the vain search for the long lost leverage that cheap energy and resources gave our grandfathers.
We overshot the mark there as well, and are already well past the point the 2nd half of your question addresses. The approx notional value of the planet has been assessed at $200-250T (by various metrics), while the financial sphere’s notional liabilities (the basis of our money) are on the order of $1-1.2 Quadrillion. The notional value of the derivative complex’s liabilities exceed the notional value of the world by a factor of 5+. IOWs, there’s $800T – $1Q of missing collateral, but more importantly the very concept of “money” has come adrift from its moorings in human activity on a finite planet.
Soros called derivatives Financial WMDs. They came perilously close to imploding in 2008 when the system still had dry powder in the form of credibility. It’s been spent, and the frantic activity and extraordinary measures we see focused on keeping up appearances is obvious. Yeah, they had a lot more dry powder than I reckoned 7 yrs ago, but whatever they had is clearly much depleted and, more critically, to no useful end. 7 yrs of kicking the can down the road resulted in nothing but more debt, and a few more luckless countries needlessly decimated. What’s painfully obvious to all is that $4-5T in QE and ZIRP yielded no real growth, and the West’s GDP numbers reflect even less wealth producing activity than they did then. No wealth was created, but the debts against what wealth there is have sky rocketed. IOW, another gap, if you will, has opened between our perceptions and the reality of our money. This gap is every bit as dangerous for the West as the “Imperial gap”. Historically, “Currency Gaps” have collapsed suddenly and without warning. When a society’s confidence in its money collapses, well, very, very bad things happen quickly. Expand that to a globalized trading world, and it’s much, much worse. It’s hard to tell when and how the repudiation of a currency begins, but when it does the results are eventually both dreadful and uncontrollable, and it always ends with the old currency being retired and new currency being born. Can the Fed print more? Sure. Can they do so without risk? Absolutely not. IMHO, the repudiation has begun in the form of massive Chinese investments across Eurasia and Africa, and the GCC’s massive building projects. Currency repudiations begin slowly at first, then quickly (apologies to Hemingway) as more and more currency buys fewer and fewer things.
Seven years have been wasted, and the solution has not changed (though its after-effects have). Shut down the presses with extreme prejudice, let the financial system collapse, pick up whatever’s semi-alive and rebuild, swearing to never let it happen again. We know that can’t happen without the world’s financial elites suddenly coming down with a case of Acute Altruism, so the train wreck will continue apace.
The world has lived through many of these, and it will live through this one, but more than one Empire has imploded with its currency. The world’s currency is the USD, and the US will bear the brunt of the changeover, but it will cause havoc everywhere.
As you say below, “we’ll see”.
“Even the USSR, didn’t collapse without massive external pressures, neither did land-locked nazi Germany, resource starved Japan or the British empire. All empires from the Romans to Napoleon, right down to the British empire, had to be crushed by massive external pressures combined with serious military defeats.”
With all due respect, this is fundamentally incorrect. The USSR collapsed as a result of internal contradictions that of course were exacerbated and hastened by external pressures. The external collapse of empires is an optical illusion. Rot not assault bring them down.
Time works against American Empire in a twofold manner. One, as mentioned here, Russia, the usurper, gets militarily stronger. Two, the Ponzi structure of the Western debt edifice becomes increasingly unsustainable. Adding to the perversity, point two is ostensibly aided or at least forestalled by war. This adds to the inevitablity of war. War is perceived as a medicinal! Imagine the madness of a cure whose ingredients include thermonuclear confrontation. -nb
With all due respect, I think you’re looking at this backwards. The internal contradictions of the USSR, just like the Russian empire before it, would’ve withstood the test of time and been corrected in due course had her enemies given her the breathing space necessary. Without external forces harrying her every step and exacerbating minor friction points within her structure, Russia would not only have survived as an empire, but thrived as well. If what you say is a correct interpretation of the facts, there would’ve been no need for Russia’s enemies to go to the trouble of investing massive resources in the project of her destruction. Same goes for the empires before, none of the states I mentioned, rotted so much to the point of decomposition. Not even the decadent Roman Empire in its final stages. A small well fed class at the top might seem to rot, but it’s an insignificant proportion of the total potential of the state. Left to its own ends, the hungrier 95% below that top tier will eventually purge the decadent few and the cycle of life will continue inexorably. Someone superior outside that state must always rise to challenge and vanquish it through force. The internal weakness you speak of acts as a catalyst, which speeds up the rate of decomposition, but rarely as a sufficient force in itself to destroy the state without assistance from exponentially more powerful external forces.
‘Backwards and forwards’ analyses ultimately stress causality when simultaneity and convergence are probably more apt. All would agree internal contradictions and external threats do not behave in isolation to one another. In the end it’s a matter of emphasis. Nonetheless I felt from your original comment you were being dismissive of the former while accentuating the latter. I still tend to favor latent, exploitable contradictions as being more game-changing when Empire is the quarry. After all, placed head to head as one ‘external’ opponent against the other, Empire is typically the superior force. Whereas the ‘war of ideas’ often favors the inferior party.
Alastair Crooke does a good job of describing the potency of internal dynamics here:
“This is what was believed to have happened to the former Soviet Union by Sunni thinkers at the time. They concluded from this experience that a deliberate program of “vexing and exhausting” Western power could potentially so inflame internal tensions, and exacerbate contradictions within the United States, that it too, would tire of its Middle Eastern entanglements — as had the USSR. Thus, they devised a calibrated action plan intended to provoke and “sting” the West into hasty — and hugely costly — military over-reaction; into blatant contradictions of their own “narrative” of benevolence, freedom and democracy; and into the fragmentation of their own internal cohesion through the deliberate playing upon Western internal contradictions — and the exposing of “the illusion” of US omniscience. Such psychological warfare, they believed, ultimately would lead to the exhaustion and the collapse of US influence in the region. And, flowing directly from this, Muslims would then witness the concomitant fall of Western proxies and allies — including in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.”
Excellent series of comments, by the way. –nb
Marx explained very well the nature of the contradictions within the sate. In this sense, it is absolutely correct to say that the Soviet state was closer to solving its internal contradictions then the capitalist state. However, external propaganda exploiting these contradictions can cause a big damage, Yugoslavia being a sad case…
Much of your critique is correct, but so are a few of your critics’s responses. The primary reason the Outlaw Empire will die is because of its Outlaw nature–the vast majority of the planet’s people don’t want to do business with an Outlaw. They want action taken on the genuine environmental crisis threatening humanity, which is why we’ve been deluged by scenes of Obama taking on climate change denialists. But that’s mostly smoke and mirrors. Also, Congress’s rabidly in favor of more war and derailing attempts to monitor climate change. Obama’s lame duck status will become very evident as Congress tunes him out.
A good litmus test is to watch what happens with Sanders’s campaign media-wise, as he’s the only dove at this time.
Good comment CP, and Grieved’s as well.
CP, Agreed that any collapse will not come entirely from within, and I don’t think the author actually intends that. The collapse will come, as they always do, through a cascade of internal and external factors that cannot be foreseen in the combination they will present themselves at the critical moments.
No-one denies America’s strength, but it differs from other Empires in ways that make it uniquely vulnerable. A great deal of the US’ Hegemonic power comes not from its de-facto strengths, but from the world’s perception of said strengths, and perceptions can fall far faster and further than the underlying realities. “Perception is reality”, until it isn’t, and in the US’ case, perceptions are falling rather faster than the US can do anything about.
The gap between what its vassals and enemies believe it is and can do, and what it in fact is and is able to do, plays a large role in sustaining this first Global Empire. A unique confluence of circumstances brought it to that position (which is a subject worth exploring) but that gap is closing for the US, and it is closing at an accelerating rate.
The Empire that shrugged off its Vietnam debacle doesn’t exist today. Back then, it was by far the greatest economic and cultural power in the world. Its competition at the time, the USSR, could barely be called #2, given the level that Western popular culture appealed to its own citizens and the level to which they hoarded USDs (along with other Western currencies). 4 decades ago, the US’ domestic political institutions and civil liberties were the envy of the world, its popular culture attractive to masses everywhere, its products amongst the best in the world, its currency “as good as gold”. Militarily, the USSR was always close, but being a land power could never challenge the US’ ability to export its “soft power”, and in any case, its ideology was too complex and too poorly expressed to compete with America’s simple promise of “more stuff”.
That “Shining City on the Hill” is looking pretty dim nowadays.
Economic & Financial Power?
Its real economy has receded, by some measures, to 3rd or even 4th place on a PPP basis. The world’s greatest manufacturing powerhouse is now a shadow of its former self. More importantly, not everyone forgot that when Yankee & British gunboats steamed up the Yangtze a century and a half ago, China was 40% of the world’s GDP. The world expects China to get back to that position and indeed sees that it is well on its way there.
The mighty USD has long since lost its connection to gold, and is in the process of losing its oil base. It is utterly dependent on the House of Saud remaining in power, and in OPEC’s demand for USD’s. When that is gone, only the suspension of disbelief and a $1 quadrillion mountain-of-cards of derivatives lie between the USD’s preeminence and catastrophe. It is precisely because it has spread the derivative risks amongst its vassals that it still has any today. I need not remind anyone here of the precariousness of the Saudi regime. It sits on a social powder keg. When it goes, the world will be instantly awash with useless dollars, all coming home in a desperate bid to convert into any tangible good. Hyperinflation is the inevitable result.
Soft (Cultural) Power?
The American Dream is no longer the world’s dream. The world finally noticed that its wonders would forever be off-limits to them. Its popular culture that enthralled the world for decades, has become more and more regional, focused on keeping its own population in thrall. India has its Bollywood, China its vibrant movie industry, Russia its “Russian World”, and the internet has decimated the US’ ability to sell its side of any story. Brand America just ain’t what it used to be, or will ever be again.
Libya, Iraq (I & II), Afghanistan, and above all Iran have made the limits to the USM’s prowess apparent to all. In the first three, its actions as underwriter of the world’s security system is looking rather too arbitrary, and too self serving to be in any body’s interest. Only its capacity for destruction remains unparalleled.
In Iran’s case, it was not the loss of capital eqpt and lives (which they couldn’t care less about) that stayed the USM’s hand for the last decade. Their own assessments exposed the real risk of losing the 5th Fleet with all hands, giving even the fruitcakes in the Pentagon pause. Simply, the gap would have clapped shut so hard it would be heard around the world, even in the US itself.
These assessments did not go unnoticed. China’s “belligerence” in the South China Sea is sending SCS nations a message: “We’re here. The USN won’t be. Make the necessary adjustments, and we’ll all get along.” Russia is giving the EU a more subtle variant in Ukraine, (and in Turkey) but its import is the same.
40 years ago, those messages wouldn’t make any foreign minister look up from his breakfast cereal. Today, they’re making pilgrimages to Beijing and Moscow.
Having said that, there is one sense in which I do agree that the US has residual staying power. Certainly not long term (>5yrs), and certainly not as Global Hegemon, but as an Orwellian Oceania. Or, perhaps, a giant N. Korea. When OPEC’s demand for dollars collapses, the Wealth Pump of Empire will lose suction. The limitless cash that fuels the USM’s ability to project power beyond Canada and Mexico/Central America, will become a memory. Along with its military, America’s bloated lifestyle will shrink dramatically.
American elites are fully aware of the repercussions of these developments for their calculus of power. The domestic changes being implemented – the annulment of civil liberties, the massive growth of the domestic security apparatus, the militarization of police, the faux elections and the constant drumbeat of war propaganda, etc etc – are unmistakable signs of America’s transition to a militarized, totalitarian state. Americans may object to everything being sacrificed to feed the USM, but there really is no choice for the elites. They won’t sit at somebody else’s table, and their love for the American Dream went only so far as it gained them power. The useless eaters will just have to put up with whatever it takes for them to keep it.
I don’t think they would be moving with such an unseemly haste if they thought time was on their side.
Erebus, Your point has been very reasonably articulated. I’ll only say that this is a case of the glass being either half full or half empty. The very symptoms you point to as being indicative of demise, can be also interpreted as symptoms of rising strength. Rome’s period of difficulty and near extinction, the Punic wars with Carthage, turned out to be growing pains that heralded an unprecedented rise. I think it is too early to pass judgement on America’s demise based on its perceived blunders and systemic contradictions. That’s why I focus on the realistic and robust nature of the challenges to her power beyond her control. Maybe you’re right, we’ll find out soon enough since we’re already in the critical years predicted by the experts on your side of the argument.
Yes, but Romans had a lot of ways to escape and places to go… The same cannot be said today about the exhausted capitalist-imperialist empire.
The level of intelligent commentary (by some) here is very remarkable, and certainly not to be found on any other comparable blog (apart from the occasional perceptive comment on ZH). Many thanks to The Saker for making this possible.
Perhaps Erebus might satisfy my curiousity one one point. Erebus said that “The mighty USD … is utterly dependent on the House of Saud remaining in power, and in OPEC’s demand for USD’s. When that is gone, only the suspension of disbelief and a $1 quadrillion mountain-of-cards of derivatives lie between the USD’s preeminence and catastrophe. It is precisely because it has spread the derivative risks amongst its vassals that it still has any today. I need not remind anyone here of the precariousness of the Saudi regime. It sits on a social powder keg. When it goes, the world will be instantly awash with useless dollars, all coming home in a desperate bid to convert into any tangible good. Hyperinflation is the inevitable result.”
How will this affect other countries and currencies (since they are all fiat)? Will the hyperinflation spread to the EUR, GBP, CHF, AUD, etc.? And will there be any difference between the effect on the US’s vassals (in particular, the Five Eyes) and the effect on other OECD countries?
Hey, I’m no economist!! Here’s an armchair observer’s view of future currency developments…
Central Banks will want to keep trade functioning, and insofar as they have issued currency in amounts commensurate with their economies and foreign trade, and have set up currency swaps with their trade partners, they will muddle through. Those that haven’t, (EG: the USD), will suffer the most. Decades of being the world’s reserve currency has resulted in a massive surplus of dollars all around the world far in excess of the US’s economy or trade.
We see currency swaps being negotiated at an accelerating pace. CBs are obviously preparing the necessary structures allowing trade to continue in the event of a collapse in the dollar.
It seems to me that this is a precursor to currency blocks similar to the EUR.
Why did the US become the powerhouse it was?
In short, land. It eliminated the natives and expanded like crazy. Along the way it got slaves to work the cotton fields, found gold and other minerals, had water, agriculture — all sorts of natural resources which it exploited. That brought immigrants with the labor and their technology. It annexed and colonized — all based on the immense natural wealth of the continent, and on it’s imperialist mind set.
But now the US’s natural resources and nutrients are running dry and it’s run out of places to colonize cheaply so it’s fantastic growth rate has reached the limit, but it doesn’t know how to deal with that and move to a sustainable system, so it’s cannibalizing itself. It’s like an old tree growing on a rock ledge with no more soil to expand its roots into, and so it rots and dies.
Blue,. you left out a step.
The growth continued by off-shoring most production. This is why they can’t contract back to a comfortable sustainability within their own borders. Bringing the factories home? higher pay rates, higher prices, mean fewer sales and less profit, that’s not growth.
Offshoring production means exporting money. They can’t offshore more, because they don’t need any more goods (ie they’ve reached the stage of too many people, being unemployed, being unable to afford buying more).
So how else to export money? as loans. Loans that can’t ever be paid back, so require more loans to roll them over (and that’s more money exported). Meanwhile the only other thing USA produces that others might want to buy is …. military materials. The best way to increase demand for those is to do some demonstrations and distribute some samples. Hence all the bombing raids all over the world.
WAR WAR WAR good defence available here, come and get it, roll up roll up, buy here if you want to be safe. Oh, you don’t have the money? well we export money too, you can borrow from us to pay us. (Been like this at least since the Marshall Plan).
The huge deficit is going to bring them down. THAT problem is caused precisely by exporting money. Everyone plays for the USA goods (guns) with USA money (borrowed). Nobody pays them with their own money, with which the US would be able to pay their own debts. If they paid off the debts, the others would not have to borrow, then THAT business dies off. They really snookered themselves.
And why can the borrowers never pay off? because they are not borrowing for expanding production which would increase THEIR income. They are borrowing for consumption — military, endless costs to “maintain standards”, subsidies to balance the “free trade” madness.
A lot of countries also hold US Treasury bonds. If the dollar collapses, they lose a lot of value on those bonds. So the whole world can go into Depression. Except for the BRICS/ Chinese development bank system, which is outside the viscous circle of the dollar. That will keep the rest of the world afloat. Ultimately it will keep the US afloat too, but it will no longer be the hegemon. They are faced with the same choice they’ve been giving the rest of the world for so long — swallow your pride or starve.
Except for paragraphs 3 and 5 which I’m not awake enough now to properly grasp — I’ll try again tomorrow.
This is a relatively recent development over the last few decades and I guess related also to going off the gold standard. But I’m falling asleep, so it will have to wait.
One thing, however — all of stuff about money, loans, debts, property — it all depends on law, and here, international law, and law means nothing if there is no power of some kind to back it, either political or military, so if the US undermines law too much it all devolves until nothing but power holding things together, and even political power is now falling apart. But military power is so destructive that it’s very limited before it becomes unusable — if you bomb someone who defaults into ash you still don’t get paid.
The answer and the clue is (to me) the dollar forget about extern, internal aspects. The enormous US military structure is totally dependant on the dollar supremacy. This allows to US tu run it practically for free. Many countries have realized that (Russia and China) for instance, thats te reason they intend to create an independant economic system to bypass the dollar. Once this happens and many countries follow the US will be unable to “sponsor” its enormous army, besides economic conditions will worsen enormously both at home and abroad. The rest can anyone figure out
According to my comment below: The answer and the clue is (to me) the dollar forget about extern, internal aspects. The enormous US military structure is totally dependant on the dollar supremacy. This allows to US tu run it practically for free. Many countries have realized that (Russia and China) for instance, thats te reason they intend to create an independant economic system to bypass the dollar. Once this happens and many countries follow the US will be unable to “sponsor” its enormous army, besides economic conditions will worsen enormously both at home and abroad. The rest can anyone figure out
This revolutions called color and pride in your country is no match. The E.U country’s have in them all the ingredients for color revolution protection. A sleeping force to be awakened at call. This mechanism is protecting the elite. Normally peaceful by steering votes. If needed by mass common people street power. Interesting is the high level of IQ at work, showering down on people missing high. Trying to engage this media in dialog to show the mismatch is futile. Thy know. With as direct result, thanks to alternative media, a growing sense by people, used to be color guided, of feeling misled. Politicians are in disagreement what to do next. The plan was perfect to a degree. Spoiled by outside forces. War came never up in executing plans of color. People misled are the ones believing anything told. Thy are mix of students, failed students, drugs addicts, unemployed by profession, and the plain stupid. Thy are the famous 33 % of any country willing to color the street red, for your good.
Oh no, not yet another of these “America is about to collapse” articles retuning again and again for decades.
That is nonsense. Always was too. US owns like 80% of the world’s valuable stuff, including pretty much all of chinese and european industry.
Also, most of the US debt is debt to itself. More than a half of the total. That’s what all those “experts” are desperately trying to hide.
Inside China, the Chinese govt owns whatever it wants to own with the stroke of a pen. That’s what its collection of Treasuries is for, speaking of “debt”.
This is a very astute analysis of this period. The problem is not just that there is no peace party in Washington, but that the drumbeats of war have been blasting from the captive so-called “free” press in the US and Europe for over a year. This means that the public has no idea of the real situation, and is drinking the “Koolade” of the lies. Worst than this is the insane reasoning in the Pentagon that they can nuke countries without causing “co lateral damage,” their sick way of saying the killing of civilians. So the problem is not just in the civilian sector, but permeates the whole American-UK leadership structure. I sincerely hope we have that year, but feel that the clock is within only a second or two of midnight. If Russia manages to pull this off, I hope to see then end of this horrible game and a time when nations can truly work together for the common good of humanity.
i’m sorry to say, but you are wrong: Germany did not lost the Great Patriotic War (GPW/WW2) in 1943!
The last time Germany lost the GPW/WW2 was 22/01/1901. Germany’s defeat had been bound already … 23/06/1865; at least cruelty of future wars has been determined since then.
Yes, Germany lost GPW/WW2 long before it’s beginning. And, by the way, it’s not Russia which made Germany to lose GPW! 27 million russians dead are in no way any kind of victory. And more, that (not only 27 millions russians dead and, as an additional benefit, some 27-28 millions more from all over the world) has been exactly what the vanquisher has had in mind when setting continental Europe (i.e. including Russia) to fire for a 2nd Thirty Year’s War.
P.S. No, Germany, germans are (in no way) not inculpable of what happened during GWP/WW2.
P.P.S. Yes, of course, it’s been Russia which thankfully liberated (half of) Europe from german Nazism. But regrettably Russia forgot to liberate (continental) Europe from other germanic Nazism – that’s exactly (this couldn’t be stressed enough), what has to be done now, the missing liberation.
P.P.P.S. Yes, again, the little Georgian already would have had the chance (despite Teheran 1943) to liberate whole (continental) Europe.
“the little Georgian”
Did you forget to mention his pockmarks and withered arm?
Thank you for another example of immersion in the opponents ideologies and practices.
Not sure whether ‘victim’ is the right interpretation: I think the globalists are going beyond currency as we know it.
It’s possible Corbett is in essential agreement with the idea.
I have no idea what the Russian/ Chinese position is – no, partial or total agreement. But I doubt they find the principle of a singular locus of control appealing.
Dear The Saker,
The WWII British Arctic Convoy soldiers are going to Russia to show thier respect :):
Some Allied Vets aren’t letting the poison spoil their memories.
Rokossovsky had plenty of time to prepare at Kursk. Hitler was too impatient, and then he dithers.
He also had the German Battle Plan, courtesy of Bletchley Park.
I cannot agree with Ishchenko that the US stands before an economic breakdown. Foreign trade is only a small part of its economy. It can devalue the dollar without much consequence – as it has done in the past.
America’s aggression in Ukraine is in my opinion primarily just the kind of thing that is in fashion in Washington. There is no deep theory behind it. It is just like the British conquering colonies at the end of the 19th century: the new colonies didn’t have valuable resources and only cost money. However, gathering colonies was in fashion as a symbol of power and so it was difficult for politicians to avoid that fashion.
Russia is a very comfortable adversary for the US. The Cold War history is a nice excuse. There is very little trade between the countries so the US risks little. If the US sought trouble with China powerful trade interests would protest.
As for Russia, please let’s not overestimate its importance. Yes, it has many resources and a strong army. But its economy is rather small. And using resources as a weapon is risky business as it forces those dependent on it to find other suppliers.
It’s true that Russia is not inherently at all dangerous to the US. Pretty much nobody is–the US has an ocean between itself and any remotely plausible threat, and a very strong navy. Russia cannot, even if it wished to, operate as an offensive threat to the United States short of a suicidal nuclear first strike.
Defensively, however, Russia has a proven track record as the graveyard of empires, the huge-sized version of Afghanistan. The only way Russia can become a significant problem for the United States is if the United States insists on aggressively targeting Russia, in some foolish imperial overstretch attempt at dominating every region in the world. In such a case, Russia is dangerous roughly in proportion to United States elites’ willingness to ignore core national interests in favour of their own power objectives. Unfortunately for the US, that willingness seems very strong.
But Russia is always sloth to respond
anglos west had not one but several plans to destabilise world but has Rusdia got even a plan A , let alone planBor plan c and D?
Russia has no aim or plan she just teacts.
she has to be proactive to defeat her enemies.
I think they have Plan A Plan B all the way through to Plan Z.
But Plan A is the old easy one — when your enemy is making mistakes, don’t get in his way.
That translates to let them wear themselves out, refuse to fight when they pick you, let them tire themselves even more trying to poke you from the other side, let them do all the running around. And the more the enemy does, the more certain you can be as to his intentions and plans. But while you’re sitting there watching him, he gets no clues to yours.
Meanwhile… things like the BRICS bank set up, things like the huge pipeline deal with China, they don’t get casually suggested over lunch and ready to signs contracts by dinner time. Things like that take years of solid work. Nobody knew they were doing it until they were ready to sign.: so nobody could put spanners in the works, blackmail anybody, colour revolution anybody etc. to prevent it.
The more time they gain, the more possible angles they can have covered, too. That’s a lot of uncertainty they don’t need to worry about.
Russia will not strike first. They don’t want war. But if they are hit, they’ll be hitting back very hard. And think I think very neatly, very precisely, not a huge obliteration. Just enough to stop the danger.
On some statues of Zeus and occasionally Moses one may see little horns signifying lightning bolts. A baruch is a small horn…you can convert that to English easily enough.! Anyway a small horn comes to power seemingly from nowhere and in doing so crushes everything and one in his path. He is feted as a peacemaker but it turns out according to the Book that this ain’t so. But he is followed by one who was vanquished and his name means big horn and as a further clue adds up strangely enough to a type of triangle. This can be realised by use of the clue laid down in John wherein 153 fish are caught. Now 153 is the sum of a Pythagorean triangle and as it happens there is another summed triangle number mentioned in a work by a man called John and so as that number points to a man’s name one might conclude that name would be a triangular portion and a horn…now what could it be huh…let’s say it might be a gore…when someone is gored they are done so by a gore…easy see…so he was vanguished and he has demonstrated impatience in that this next attempt will be his third…and he brings the carbon dollar…the mark or signifier so to speak of “the life form”. Don’t assume the beast on that portion of the text has anything whatever to do with any other mention because a quick check back to the original Greek shows that the mark of the ” beast” refers to “non described life form” in other words “all lifeforms” because as we all know all life is carbon based…so we are being set up for conflict which destroys the current financial system so as to replace it with a guilt laden carbon system…so that no man may buy or sell save he who hath the signifier of life…carbon.
Great analysis, Spot on! I would think so because its pretty much what I’ve been saying in the comments here over the last year. Only thing I would add is that we should not write off the Empire just yet. The Wester capitalist elites are cunning, resourcefull and very powerful. Russia and China have not won just yet.
Brilliant article can covering all aspects of Russian agony of war
This analysis is so true – it is scary. I hope the world gets another year.
It’s odd . . . I’m on board with most of the premises of this analysis. And I agree with the conclusions. But there’s a key bit of logic in between that I think is quite wrong; the conclusions follow from the premises for different reasons, and that makes a difference because of what it implies about the psychology of the US.
I don’t think the US was doing colour revolutions because they felt the US economic system and dominance through the dollar was about to collapse. Even now, while I believe US elites have a general sense of relative economic decline, and this worries them deeply, most of them have not really faced the real problems with the financialized economy, the crises it’s prone to, and the diminished ability to retain US dollar hegemony, which is likely to break down pretty fast now that cracks are appearing that they cannot force shut. Those problems are very much there, but the movers and shakers of the USA remain in a fair degree of denial about them. And certainly they were very much in denial about them as recently as the great financial crisis, or they would have enforced a very different set of solutions to the problems of underwater financial institutions, runaway speculation and leverage and so forth.
So the colour revolutions had to be for different reasons. I’m thinking it’s more the “man with a hammer” situation. US elites may still think of the US as a dominant economic power, but US government institutions have been shifting. The levers of US power are increasingly military and “security” in nature–with the latter involving the range of black ops, government sponsored subversion in foreign countries, propaganda and use of media and so forth. This is not just because of US economic decline and the rise of its military and security/espionage complexes, but also because of the shift in the nature of US economic elites. These were once dominated by domestic production, but are now dominated by finance and by rather finance-minded footloose capital using outsourced production. And they don’t like the government using economic tools other than things like “free trade” agreements to dominate other countries, because such tools tend to place limits on them and what they can do. They’re fine with letting the “colour revolutions” and the bombers do the dirty work while they just scavenge around the globe unrestricted.
So the colour revolutions were no doubt part of a general notion of encirclement and constriction of the Russian sphere, but were not IMO chosen as a tactic based on a perception of lack of time or ability to use economic methods to achieve the same ends or a realization of intractable crisis arriving soon. Americans are overconfident and American elites listen to their own propaganda a lot. They just did it the “colour revolution” way because they could and because they’re bloody minded. They had the hammer, and various places looked like nails.
The results aren’t in themselves that different (Russia still needed to buy time, and the US is still running out of it whether they realize it or not), but there’s a difference between confronting an opponent who plans long term and has a conscious belief that their back is to the wall, and confronting an opponent who is overconfident (albeit with some unease at the back of their mind) and whose chosen solutions tend to be violent just because violence is their preferred option.
In the end the USD will implode when one of the players that can decide to do so. A couple of players/states could destroy the US-Dollar tomorrow if they wanted. But, it would also mean that they would destroy themselves in the proces because they pratically own the US-debt which would be worth nothing after the crash. In my opinion the plan is to get rid of as much of ‘US-debt’ as they can, building up your silver and gold stock and wait for the gold and silver prices to go up to what they actually should be (5 times more, making the then partially gold backed currencies stronger than ever) It is more or less about deciding when the time is right. The later they do it, the easier it will be. Ofcourse in the end the US decide when the time is right. The point when war is upon us. All big wars are won/all big empires are defeated by a lack of financial possibilities. So for now the US can print all the money they want. And the longer ‘they’ wait.. the deeper the fall….
A brilliant piece, and coincidentally by a military pundit who knows from where the American bellicosity is stemming. Note that the author, Rostislav Ishchenko did amazingly delve into how much the fiscal (dollar) situation of the United States (Washington, really) is creating a kind of “Hail Mary” all or nothing effort to involve Europe in this war, and I think that Washington is taking the gamble and throwing that ball. Merkel and Hollande are likely aware of this and the Minsk efforts were probably a stall goal to let “their” Russian sanctions time to create damage to the EU to be appreciated enough to create the now widening split between Europe and Washington. To be sure Putin is well in on the game plan here – after all this is an existential moment for Russia AND Europe AND the USA. And quite rightly the author notes that the very existence of NATO is also in play. If NATO falls apart over pro and anti war factions within, this is a very real win against a nuclear war happening in Europe. And the United States will go down in defeat without a shot being fired. My kind of war!
This is the first time ever, I have read a military treatise that factors in the monetary crisis as being central to the issue. WELL DONE!
I always felt that Putin was just avoiding provocation over the Ukraine situation and hoping that the disintegration for the United States mentioned in this essay would happen to make the threat go away. As Stephen F. Cohen keeps saying, “Putin is not aggressive, but he is reactive”. It will be his statesmanship, his diplomacy, and his gamesmanship with help from a few like thinkers in Europe that will see us through this crisis. As I keep saying, we are not the good guys in this event. But we are players and we will receive the horrendous consequences for any mistakes. If one had a choice for who would be least likely to kill us as a leader, would you pick Putin, Obama, Hilary, or McCain? I rest my case. As a patriotic Canadian I think I am responsible, informed and wise enough to offer the opinion that my country, Canada, is morally wrong in its behavior toward Russia and Ukraine. So far we can still voice opposition to government in this country even if it but a vassal to a waning power.
Thank you, Saker, for posting this to the world.
This is a must read piece of work.
Excellent comment, Larry Galearis, thanks! I agree with you.
Dear Mr Ishchenko,
Thank you for this marvellous piece. I needed to sit down quietly and read and re-read this slowly as it was such an important piece to absorb and appreciate. It backs-up what many of us have thought and why Russia hasn’t rushed into Ukraine. I hope and pray we do get past the summer. Though as you say, its the suicidal Baltics and Poland who are also the possible triggers.
I was interested in one section in reagrd to the liberals and “siloviki” (power ministries) about tandem and bluff – an interesting point which I don’t think has come out before – though you can see it.
The US is about to implode on itself shortly – its all coming to the surface.
We in Poland aren’t interested in war with Russia at all. The problem is, that Poland is since longer time ruled not by polish, but by anti-polish government rather. Well we have elections this year, and I still hope for at least slight change.
Please note, that – unfortunately – we have presently a few Ukrainians in government, like Siemoniak (minister of defense), or Schetyna (mofa). This doesn’t help either.
Hhmm… I wouldn’t be too triumphalist. USAF can still field 182 F-22 genuine stealth fighter bombers equipped with PGMs plus the B-2 stealth bomber in addition to vast numbers of cruise missiles including stealth missiles, and drones. This would pose a significant challenge for the Russian defense forces. The US still has space. Russia’s PAK-FA/T-50 is still not in production. At this point Russia cannot be assured of air parity over much of its territory. Without air parity you lose pretty quickly as the Nazi’s discovered in WWII and Iraq discovered more recently. No one could accuse the Germans or the Iraqi nationalist forces of lacking courage or the will to fight but once they lost the skies they lost.
Russia needs another decade. By then the USAF will have the useless JSF, the not so super ‘Superhornet’ and a handful of F-15s. By then some F-22 may be retired. The PAK-FA should be in production. On just how hopeless the JSF is see Air Power Australia professional analysis here: http://www.ausairpower.net/
For some analysis from me see here: http://www.findinghomebookspace.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/submission-to-joint-standing-committee.html
For an Australian perspective readers may find the following of interest: http://www.findinghomebookspace.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/defence-force-pornography-meets-real.html
May peace and sanity prevail.